2 ms·

I'm not convinced. You suggest a lot of information is paywalled or in another language. Canadian girlfriend much? > There are also a number of chemicals withi

I'm not convinced. You suggest a lot of information is paywalled or in another language. Canadian girlfriend much? > There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree). Weak sauce. There are a number of chemicals within the skin itself that act as light traps; it doesn't mean NIR photons are dangerous to our bodies. > Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species. Not even weak sauce. This has been known since at least 2,000 B.C.E. Your entire post is a nothing burger. And you haven't even mentioned the effect contrails have on macular degradation yet.

trod1234 1y ago
Luckily I don't need to convince you. Unfortunately, not everything can be conveniently handed to someone for review when there has been a coordinated effort to either suppress or make unavailable. The papers exist, you can look them up, and read them. Some are in German. You didn't bother. In such cases, its rational and standard practice that statements aren't to be discounted until you actually read the material and verify one way or the other. Judgment is withheld until then. Something you fail to do here. I pointed to the people who did the most work which is sufficient, especially given the fact that claims were made that there are no resources out there on this. There are, they just aren't generally public. If you have access to Alumni resources; or are able to read another language, great you can read those papers and get the details. Hollwich is particularly famous for his work on both people and later in animals. The pathways mentioned exists, and were confirmed with proper controls in people. Your claim that this is a nothing burger is unfounded without rational basis, it amounts to "You didn't hand me everything on a plate so you must be wrong". This is not only a total fallacy, but the same kind of behavior observed in toddlers and people who are disadvantaged from their excessive level of entitlement. These characteristics naturally exclude people from being researchers and makes any viable discussion dubious at best, based on a lack of credibility from those people. Given your proclivity to contrails and other conspiracy, I think you may have forgotten to mention other biased beliefs other fantastical things that may be clouding your reasoning; or alternatively if you had meant that sarcastically you should have added /s at the end which is standard netiquette. Overall your response is based in ad hominem, and thus should be discarded by any discerning reader. Your statements are easily refuted. They certainly didn't have biochemical testing in 2000 BCE to prove this. The researchers mentioned did use testing to prove this pathway exists, rigorously. In my estimation of your response, you are the type of person that would believe the earth is flat. Good luck convincing those people of anything.

trod1234 1y ago

Luckily I don't need to convince you. Unfortunately, not everything can be conveniently handed to someone for review when there has been a coordinated effort to either suppress or make unavailable. The papers exist, you can look them up, and read them. Some are in German. You didn't bother. In such cases, its rational and standard practice that statements aren't to be discounted until you actually read the material and verify one way or the other. Judgment is withheld until then. Something you fail to do here. I pointed to the people who did the most work which is sufficient, especially given the fact that claims were made that there are no resources out there on this. There are, they just aren't generally public. If you have access to Alumni resources; or are able to read another language, great you can read those papers and get the details. Hollwich is particularly famous for his work on both people and later in animals. The pathways mentioned exists, and were confirmed with proper controls in people. Your claim that this is a nothing burger is unfounded without rational basis, it amounts to "You didn't hand me everything on a plate so you must be wrong". This is not only a total fallacy, but the same kind of behavior observed in toddlers and people who are disadvantaged from their excessive level of entitlement. These characteristics naturally exclude people from being researchers and makes any viable discussion dubious at best, based on a lack of credibility from those people. Given your proclivity to contrails and other conspiracy, I think you may have forgotten to mention other biased beliefs other fantastical things that may be clouding your reasoning; or alternatively if you had meant that sarcastically you should have added /s at the end which is standard netiquette. Overall your response is based in ad hominem, and thus should be discarded by any discerning reader. Your statements are easily refuted. They certainly didn't have biochemical testing in 2000 BCE to prove this. The researchers mentioned did use testing to prove this pathway exists, rigorously. In my estimation of your response, you are the type of person that would believe the earth is flat. Good luck convincing those people of anything.